War has torn the sleepy mountain nation of Afghanistan for the past three decades. Now, however, its fortune may change, thanks to the discovery of a mineral deposit wth over $1T USD worth of lithium and other mineral deposits. (Source: Tyler Hicks/The New York Times)

Lithium is commonly used in batteries (electric vehicles, electronics) and pharmaceuticals. (Source: About.com)

A map of Afghanistan's resouces, along with their value. (Source: The New York Times)

Military deployment and close political ties may give U.S. ideal opportunity to harvest valuable resource

Lithium
deposits worldwide may be sufficient to eventually sustain
the demands of an electric-vehicle driven world and modern
electronics, but in the near-term, demand-driven
shortages loom. Fortunately, the U.S. has made a pivotal
discovery that may help to keep costs in the U.S. down.

According
to a
report in The
New York Times,
senior American government officials are quoted as saying that a
massive mineral deposit has been discovered in Afghanistan which
holds $1T USD in lithium, iron, copper,
cobalt, and gold deposits.

The lithium deposits are expected to exceed those of Bolivia, the world's largest current producer of lithium. Bolivia contains over 9 million tons of extractable lithium, according to recent estimates. Lithium prices currently are at around $6,700 USD per ton and have doubled over the last few years. That places the net value of the lithium deposits alone at around $60B-$100B USD. An internal Pentagon memo states that Afghanistan
may become the "Saudi Arabia of lithium."

The iron deposits are estimated to be worth $420.9B USD and the copper deposits are estimated to be worth $274B USD. A full breakdown (with the notable absence of lithium) is available here.

The U.S.
currently occupies Afghanistan, and this spring U.S. President Barack
Obama started the deployment of 30,000 extra troops to the region.
The U.S. troops are safeguarding the fledgling Afghani government
from the Taliban, a Sunni Islamist insurgency movement that would
prefer to see the country returned to a non-democratic religious
rule.

That close relationship may allows the U.S. to harvest
the resources quite affordably. And it should allow U.S.
corporations to easily enter the country and pursue development of
the resources.

U.S. officials recently briefed
Afghanistan's President
Hamid Karzai and the Afghan government on the
discovery. Gen.
David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central
Command, in a Saturday interview stated, "There is stunning
potential here. There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think
potentially it is hugely significant."

The discovery
could provide for a great boost to Afghanistan's standard of living.
Currently, the entire nation only makes $12B USD a year, a figure
largely derived from Opium drug trafficking and foreign
aid.

However, threats to the U.S. and Afghanistan harvesting
the deposit remain. Paul
A. Brinkley, deputy undersecretary of defense for business and
leader of the Pentagon team, says that while Afghanistan has a
national mineral mining law, this law has never received a serious
challenge before. He states, "No one has tested that law;
no one knows how it will stand up in a fight between the central
government and the provinces."

Also, he's worried about
possible environmental impact of the mining, stating, "The big
question is, can this be developed in a responsible way, in a way
that is environmentally and socially responsible? No one knows
how this will work."

Afghanistan has little current
mining capacity. States Jack Medlin, a geologist in theUnited
States Geological Survey’s international affairs program, "This
is a country that has no mining culture. They’ve had some
small artisanal mines, but now there could be some very, very large
mines that will require more than just a gold pan."

Even
if the U.S. can handle environmental and legal concerns, there's the
issue of the Taliban trying to take the deposits by force. And
there's the problem of growing tensions between the U.S. government
and Karzai, following suggestions by U.S. officials that Karzai may
have committed election fraud in his most recent
election.

Regardless, the deposits appear valuable enough that
it's likely that the U.S. and Afghani governments will be compelled
to cooperate to begin their extraction.

Interest in possible
mineral deposits was triggered by 1980s era Soviet charts which
suggested mineral deposits in Afghanistan's mountainous terrain.
The U.S. Geological Survey investigated the region, first using
advanced gravity and magnetic measuring equipment attached to an old
Navy Orion P-3 aircraft and then with a using an old British bomber
equipped with instruments that offered a three-dimensional profile of
mineral deposits below the earth’s surface.

Don’t apologize. His whole article is made to sensationalize the story in his personal quest to make everyone think that lithium is some kind of scarce material. The main article that he copied all his info from (the one in the NY Times) clearly states that the majority of the wealth of the find is in copper and iron.

In addition, he is completely throwing out his own, unsubstantiated opinion about “US companies” getting a leg up on the rights for mining. The real article clearly points out how other countries are working to influence control over this, with the Chinese already buying Afghani ministers to get the rights for various mining years ago.

Further, the Afghanis knew about these deposits decades ago when the Soviets originally found them. They’ve just been too busy killing each other to do anything with them for the last 30 years.

I’d suggest anyone interested in the topic just go read the article at the NY Times website. It is the source for which all the quotes and info was derived here (but without the false, sensationalist assumptions that try and make this dailytech article into something it is not.)

quote: Further, the Afghanis knew about these deposits decades ago when the Soviets originally found them. They’ve just been too busy killing each other to do anything with them for the last 30 years.

That statement is misleading. The exact extent or location of the deposits was NOT known. Did you read the article? Soviet maps suggested there might be deposits, and general locations of these deposits, but it was not until the USGS aerial analysis that the exact amount was known.

quote: In addition, he is completely throwing out his own, unsubstantiated opinion about “US companies” getting a leg up on the rights for mining.

Why would we not get a leg up? We're occupying the country, and the Pentagon has explicitly stated that it is working to coordinate the extraction of these resources. I never said that other nations (China, the EU) will also fight to gain these resources, I merely pointed out that we enjoy a slight edge over them currently, which I feel to be entirely accurate.

And let's be thankful for that. I'd rather we have these deposits than China.

quote: his personal quest to make everyone think that lithium is some kind of scarce material

I never have tried to say that lithium is scarce in occurrence. I have however written that demand for refining and extraction is currently exceeding supply. This is absolutely the case. If you don't want to take my word for it, look at lithium prices, which have been high over the last few years.

I never enjoy reading a point by point rebuttal. They are often clouded by half truths and accusations that have no basis on the material facts, or even the original comment. I find them rather petty and it really drags all sides involved down into the gutter.

Now, Jason, I will hold my hands up and not claim innocence here. In the past I used to employ the same tactics, so I am guilty as charged. Then, as I developed, I stopped. I really can't recommend proofreading prior to posting enough.

quote: I never enjoy reading a point by point rebuttal.They are often clouded by half truths and accusations that have no basis on the material facts, or even the original comment. I find them rather petty and it really drags all sides involved down into the gutter.Now, Jason, I will hold my hands up and not claim innocence here. In the past I used to employ the same tactics, so I am guilty as charged. Then, as I developed, I stopped. I really can't recommend proofreading prior to posting enough.

You're absolutely right, thinly veiled passive-aggressive diatribes that don't address the issues at hand are the way to go...

quote: And allow me to apologize in advance if it came off as a bit snippy....but I just found your paragraph to be misleading

No, I absolutely appreciate the comment. The New York Times article was rather vague on the exact amount that these resources were worth, individually. I made a mistake implying the lithium alone was worth $1T USD, but I assure you that this morning I have been working to fact check exactly what it WAS worth.

I have since done some research and come up with what I feel to be a reasonable estimate of the lithium deposits' worth, given the premise that they exceed Bolivia's deposits, lithium's current price for ton, and the total magnitude of Bolivia's deposits.

I hope this new info provides people with a better estimate than The New York Times's vague numbers. That said, I do appreciate the work the reporters at the Times did to gather up info from the Pentagon and break this story.

And as an aside to the other people responding to the original op, when this kind of info is raised, I would appreciate if you tone down the replies and give me time to fix the material. At the time this issue was raised, I was on the road, and I just now was able to fix it... Often times I'm working to collect more info to supplement the limited info I initially had available...

quote: And as an aside to the other people responding to the original op, when this kind of info is raised, I would appreciate if you tone down the replies and give me time to fix the material. At the time this issue was raised, I was on the road, and I just now was able to fix it... Often times I'm working to collect more info to supplement the limited info I initially had available...

Yeah see, in the real world, "reporters" with integrity wait until they actually have all the facts to publish their articles. They don't admonish their readers for pointing out simple mistakes instead of passing it along to the writer in secret.

Get your info straight the first time, then we wouldn't complain. After all, you just copied everything from the NY Times for your initial post. I seemed to have been able to understand it better while reading it on my phone in the crapper than you did, and I wasn't even worried about copying it as an article of my own.

Lastly, one or two articles would just be considered sloppy, but pretty much every one of your postings bends the reality of the story to increase its sensationalist quotent.

quote: Yeah see, in the real world, "reporters" with integrity wait until they actually have all the facts to publish their articles. They don't admonish their readers for pointing out simple mistakes instead of passing it along to the writer in secret.

Again, you are entirely wrong. READ below please. I did not "admonish" the original op, I thanked them. There's no secrecy.

quote: Get your info straight the first time, then we wouldn't complain. After all, you just copied everything from the NY Times for your initial post. I seemed to have been able to understand it better while reading it on my phone in the crapper than you did, and I wasn't even worried about copying it as an article of my own.

Obviously not, as your first post indicated. You seemed to indicate that the Afghanis knew previously where these resources were or their extent, which is wholly wrong. Also, the NYT piece did NOT put a monetary value on the lithium deposit or even an estimate of how many tons it might be (other than "more than Bolivia"). It did do this for other minerals, but there was definite info missing from that piece.

Fortunately I dug up this info and provided an estimate. You're welcome.

quote: Lastly, one or two articles would just be considered sloppy, but pretty much every one of your postings bends the reality of the story to increase its sensationalist quotent.

Again, this is a legitimate news story. I don't see you having pointed out any factual errors, other than the one originally voiced by the op, which has been corrected.

What exactly is sensational about it?

Can you voice a single legitimate complaint, or are you going to merely write more long vague accusations?

It seems to me that you are seeking attention, so I suppose I'm making a mistake in humoring your behavior.

"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet. A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis